Ban Political Advertising
Twitter has decided to ban political advertising. Facebook has not. Political advertising is a bigger source of revenue for Facebook than Twitter, so this is not surprising. The controversy is about censoring lies in political ads.
Facebook does not want to do that, likely because it would have a tough time deciding what was actually a lie, and whatever it did would result in an attack by whichever side felt aggrieved.
That position makes sense as a practical matter but, as always, does not solve the problem.
The flaw in democracy is that voters are stupid. If you let them be lied to, they will be stupider still. Stupid voters may not be highly correlated with good leadership.
Proposed solutions designed to weed out lies tend to put the burden on either the consumers themselves (voters) or on the distributors (social media but curiously not newspapers, television or radio).
If you really cared about banning political advertising, you would put the burden on the candidates themselves, their advisers and the people making the ads to police accuracy.
Those who created a false advertisement would be banned from roles as political consultants and purveyors of campaign services. Candidates might be disqualified from the race.
Of course, there would be much First Amendment posturing, mostly designed to make the issue go away. As always, there is precedent, albeit inconvenient.
The securities laws prohibit lying when you sell stocks and bonds so why can’t there be laws to prohibit lying when you sell politicians?